Does anyone else think it's strange that some old movies like 'Lady Jane' have shown up with the option of a HD rental?

I know the previews aren't as good as the actual rental but just looking at the preview convinces me that there's no way this rental would look any better in HD than SD. The original source is obviously too fuzzy to make any difference at all.

Does anyone else think it's strange that some old movies like 'Lady Jane' have shown up with the option of a HD rental?

I know the previews aren't as good as the actual rental but just looking at the preview convinces me that there's no way this rental would look any better in HD than SD. The original source is obviously too fuzzy to make any difference at all.

Anyone else agree?

Click to expand...

I would agree - but I dont know what the source was - if they have good archival footage they can do a lot with it. If you ever get a chance look at an old copy of the Wizard of Oz - then look for a copy of the digitally remastered copy - there is a huge difference - it is like going from SD to HD even if its technically been shot on old film - so it all just depends on the source quality and what the studio is able to do with it - but in reality if it was not shot in HD to begin with it most likely will never be all that it could have been. That being said I would take the remastered Wizard of Oz over the old one any day - it is that big a difference.

Apple is a company that likes to gather real market usage data rather than taking surveys, to formulate their response to the market. Very typically, they test the waters with ideas that might work and ideas that don't... to understand better why the ideas that work do, and why the ideas that work don't. This is a lot smarter than simply taking market survey data because there is often a difference between what people say they will buy, and what they actually buy when it comes down to it.

Here's a thought... How do you determine what directions you should go in when launching a new platform of a concept that has failed so many times before? Well, one thing you might try to do is gather as much information as possible about people's usage habits.

One good way to do this is to span a big cross-section of the population. In the case of movies, put a wide variety of films, old and new, various genres, out there... If you can only get studios to commit a handful at first, start with as broad a range as possible.

Then you start collecting data on what people like and don't like, and use that to go back to your vendors (the studios) and say "here's what we found in genres a, b, c, d, decades a, b, c, d, from user groups a, b, c, d... and so on.

That's going to generate a lot more buy-in than just picking the latest and greatest because it shows that there lies a vast market out there with many potential consumers in the target market, rather than just one kind of consumer with interest in only new releases, or predominantly action films, or whatever...

but in reality if it was not shot in HD to begin with it most likely will never be all that it could have been.

Click to expand...

All those old movies were shot using FILM. How much better can you get than that? Modern film is much better than HD video. Maybe 4x better. But even old film from the 1930's was very good - much better than SD video quality

Even the 75 year old 35mm film is SO MUCH better then SD video. Any movie made from the 1930's onward could be re-mastered in HD provided the film has not yet turnned to mush.

The traditional movie frame is 24 millimeters wide Film and lenses from the pre-world war II era could easily resolve to 30 to 50 lines per mm To capture that you'd need to do a 1K to 2K scan (that's 1,000 to 2,000 pixels across) Those old films were shot in something between 720 and 1080 to use todays video terms.

... That's going to generate a lot more buy-in than just picking the latest and greatest because it shows that there lies a vast market out there with many potential consumers in the target market, rather than just one kind of consumer with interest in only new releases, or predominantly action films, or whatever...

That's what I would do.

Click to expand...

I think you missed my point. I'm not asking why that film (or any other older film) is in their database. I've seen Lady Jane and I actually loved it, and think it's great that Apple have included it as a rental.

I'm talking about whether it, and others that seem to be 4:3 should really be offered as a HD download for an extra dollar, when it seems dubious as to whether it will display any better than SD.

All those old movies were shot using FILM. How much better can you get than that? Modern film is much better than HD video. Maybe 4x better. But even old film from the 1930's was very good - much better than SD video quality

Even the 75 year old 35mm film is SO MUCH better then SD video. Any movie made from the 1930's onward could be re-mastered in HD provided the film has not yet turnned to mush.

The traditional movie frame is 24 millimeters wide Film and lenses from the pre-world war II era could easily resolve to 30 to 50 lines per mm To capture that you'd need to do a 1K to 2K scan (that's 1,000 to 2,000 pixels across) Those old films were shot in something between 720 and 1080 to use todays video terms.

Click to expand...

Certain types of Kodak motion picture film stock (e.g. Vision series) provide a degree of clarity equivalent to as much as 6000 pixels wide... nearly three times 2k digital cinema (2048x1150).

MacRumors attracts a broad audience
of both consumers and professionals interested in
the latest technologies and products. We also boast an active community focused on
purchasing decisions and technical aspects of the iPhone, iPod, iPad, and Mac platforms.